[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> this event at the washington center is about to get underway. >> all right. friends, we are reconvening, we have a speaker, it's time to get going. before i introduce our speaker, just a quick reminder, we are going to be on television. when you have a question please go up to the q&a mike and say her name, your school and keep your question concise.

thank you. >> so, it is my distinct pleasure to get to introduce philip ride's. he was advisor to hillary clinton, secretary of state in 2009. he was promoted to deputy assistant secretary of state for strategic communication. he has worked for a number of political campaigns and holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science from columbia university, a school in general studies. you can, here we have an example of what you can do with the political science bachelor's degree. going to hand over the microphone to him and not take any more of his time when i'm looking forward to a great presentation. [applause] >> of mourning. thank you for having me. thank you julia and ann and

kevin. i didn't know this was on tv anymore than you did. so hello. i just want to say a few things up front quickly, and then get right to hearing from you guys. if there's anything you wanted to add we can take a couple minutes. i want to give you some context of who you are hearing from. i want to give you a few warnings. up until 8:00 p.m. on election night last november 8, i could not fathom the idea of hillary clinton not being president of the united states. i was just wrong as anyone. now come 801's things started, in hindsight, making a little bit of sense. i'm going to try to speak from that perspective of having complete 2020 hindsight. to is i'm going to reference, just by habit, history and

pulling and the problem with doing that at this day and age is that people can say well the polling was wrong. polling was right, pulling was wrong, but i think at this point to just not have any conversation about pulling or seeing now, or more importantly history, yes history was upended last year and it was upended in 2008. it will be upended, doesn't mean that has no bearing. part of that is i will probably be a little annoying and do the can you imagine if this happened when hillary clinton was president or can you imagine if this happened when president obama was president, and i know that and i try to do a lesson must i think is important because to me the greatest threat right now is the normalization of what's happening. there is a term that i read, i don't know who to credit it too. malignant normalcy. that is a big part of what's

happening and that is the scourge that i think needs to be stopped. obviously the greatest perpetrator of that, in my mind, is donald trump. i will end by saying i think there is no more important thing to do right now then to get donald trump out of office as fast as possible. that's where i'm coming from. please don't hesitate to challenge me, if i don't like it i'll snap back at you or something. [laughter] and most importantly, i'm going to be negative about things when it's negative but don't leave your dissuaded or demoralized personally i have worked for hillary clinton since july 2002 so it's 15 and a half years and she is one of the most beloved, less beloved polarizing people in america.

i think people automatically assume that because i work for her and i'm a democrat that my views are lefty, liberal, and are often not. the point i'm trying to make is that i've actually never felt as much of a democrat or as much as american since last november and a lot of what i believe has to happen is coming from that perspective of the damage that's being done to our country, not just what's evident in the short term, but was probably going to last for decades. so with that uplifting opening, kevin did you, or should i just open it up. >> if you'd like to start with the comment or question can

say who you are and where you're from. >> someone said there's harvard extension students here. i did a couple semesters there in my long track to getting my degree. >> hello. i'm andy goodbar from and jc you located in jersey city new jersey my question is, looking back on the 2016 election, do you think hillary clinton did an adequate job at properly campaigning herself and getting herself out to the large majority of americans because there was a lot of criticism on how she faltered or didn't campaign herself enough. >> the question. i assumed that's often asked in the form of not going to wisconsin to go to blues th the blue states she didn't win. i understand why people say that, but i think a couple things. when people asked me about wisconsin, wisconsin is a package with wisconsin and

pennsylvania and while everyone obsesses about wisconsin, if only had she had gone to wisconsin, i hate to say it, not to talk down to the chief state or whatever they're called, but she lost by more than the margin of wisconsin. that's not an excuse, but the reason i say to look at it as a three some is you can't make that argument about pennsylvania. the lady practically moved to pennsylvania. no one didn't take pennsylvania seriously, including the other arms of the democratic party so if you remember, if you look back to april, may, maybe a little later of 2016, you had priorities usa, they were spending a great deal and working toward electing a democrat, they immediately identified pennsylvania as a key state, a must win. they poured tens of millions of dollars in. campaign word in tens of millions of dollars. the campaign pulled regularly,

outside groups pulled regularly, pennsylvania papers and academic institutions pulled regularly so it's hard, i understand the wisconsin.and i don't know, maybe if she had spent as much time in wisconsin and she did pennsylvania she would've one wisconsin. i'd still be standing here is not having anything to do today because donald trump would be president. i understand the point, but one thing, i know that we will hopefully get to innocently asked me about conspiracy theories, but one of the most ridiculous things is painting hillary clinton as anything other than energetic. it is hard keeping up with her and she campaigned her tail off. she won in places like nevada that were not give me his.

in hindsight if you don't solve pennsylvania, you don't solve the whole thing. >> thank you very much. >> my name is rachel and i'm with the harvard extension school. speaking from you now 2020 hindsight, what would you have done differently in campaigning. >> can i give you one piece of advice, don't forget they give four credits. course and when you transfer some or else make sure they give you four. >> i don't plan on transferring. >> i think you have to break it down for the larger strategic question of going back to 2015 when she decided to run and what that would

look like and tactical decisions in 2016. this third bucket of external factors. in no particular order, if there's something i could do differently, i would have waited outside jim comay's car on jul july 5 before his infamous press conference and tackled him until someone was able to say this is very inappropriate which are about to do. strategically, i don't know. in hindsight there were some very big problems that would have affected any democrat. i'm also going to be, let me just say it up front, i don't think any democrat would have beaten donald trump aside from president obama. and i think that because, all come back to that but because if you look at the polling, i

think one out of every five voters came out is that they voted for donald trump. they voted for barack obama in 2012 and they continue to approve of the job barack obama was doing last year. that's pretty interesting. i think it's been hard for people to grasp that, but the reason that that is important is, if you had replaced hillary clinton with joe biden , joe biden, whom i love and if he runs, best of luck not beating donald trump out, metaphoricall metaphorically. he would have been bogged down by obamacare he would've been bogged down by trade, he would have been bogged down by being in washington for decades and

those things alone were probably dispositive, and i think the other point is everyone assumes when they say x would have one, they assume ask would have gotten what hillary clinton got and added some and i think that's a really silly way to look at it. other people would not have gotten what she got, either with specific demographics or subgroups silver strategic question is pretty hard to answer. it was just such lunacy. i think if anyone had said if i had a time capsule and went back and met with her senior campaign team in her, if we would've said you're going to face donald trump. he will be accused of sexual assault and harassment and no

one cares. he will be showing that he went back to him bankrupt and no one cares. she would be left out of the room. obviously what she did, she became the first woman candidate on the major political party. on the technical side we had some errors and she writes about those in her book which is grea great. despite what people say we want her to go away although i've never ever seen anyone say that or have the guts to say that in their own voice. she is not going anywhere. people have wanted her voice to leave for decades and thankfully she never listen to them whether i was running for senate in new york, becoming secretary of state in 2009 or running in 2016. she writes that calling a basket of trump voters the parable was not the greatest idea, although i think she was

plenty accurate at the time and especially in hindsight. there were comments she made about coworkers that were taken differently than she meant and, when you lose by 70000 votes, you can sit here and list ten things that made the difference. if i could snap my fingers it would be july 5 when james comey went to the podium like this and told the world that she was innocent or he was not pursuing anything, that no reasonable prosecutor would, but added 15 minutes of commentary that makes you think she was al capone. it was inappropriate and out of line, people who hate hillary clinton have said that. ostensibly he was fired by donald trump because of that.

obviously that's not very believable, but we had to live with that and odyssey what he did in october the double down on that. >> it probably answered some other questions, so thank you. >> i'm not used to having an hour. it's like i go on fox or msnbc and you have two minutes. >> hello. i'm abby chase from connecticut and you are obviously tasked with portraying donald trump in the mark debate with hillary to practice for the televised debate and in what ways have you seen the change between the candidate donald trump and the president donald trump, and what are the implications of any changes you've seen, if any. >> i see none.

i think the only changes have been the effect. i did play donald trump, there were three general election debates between the candidates and it's a big deal. it's one of the few times you see the candidates together. secretary clinton took them very seriously and someone said i had been training my whole life to be donald trump and i just didn't know what. it was a real window into things. first and foremost it is remarkable to go through life never suffering consequences, never. never once. goes out of business declares bankruptcy, more people come along and lend him or no

organization has the cleared more bankruptcy more office than trump casinos. he offends literally every group. there's not a demographic in this room who was offended by donald trump. now, that worked really well for someone who was lying and not getting called out on it or people were just getting desensitized to it, it worked. whenever people say how did she lose to him i say remember that 17 republicans lost to him and these were ostensibly providing care for a bunch of him but a lot of them more seasoned politicians who served in public office who had a lot of money, who were not idiots and he steamrolled them. the primaries were not close.

he barely lost iowa and never looked back. i think a lot of why election day was a shock was because people thought that routine wouldn't work to a broader audience. you could dominate the republican party with 50% of whoever these people are but when the rubber the road, but he didn't. there were no consequences to anything he said or do. now there are still no caps occurrences but he is not succeeding. if you define success simply as did you win the presidency, he was extremely successful. what he did was shocking, it's understandable in hindsight but it was remarkable. what he has done since which is basically nothing different has not worked out. it just hasn't.

tax reform was their first and it's because it's the thing that the republican party joined hands about most. so his style is not translating or it is and will find out the hard way, but for someone who wants to be loved, i don't know how he looks at a piece of pape paper, but i file it down and said 32% of america approves of me and 70% thanks they should be investigated for this or 60% can think of a single nice thing to say about me, i would maybe do something a little different. he doesn't have to become a nice guy. he could just dial some stuff down, but he has no plan. he has never had a plan. the analogy that i used once

was a pinball machine. he's not the guy standing here doing this. i'm sorry to the macgyver that. he is the ball. he's just handin hitting random bumpers and the lights and the sounds are going off. he has no plan and if you think he's got a plan and you said out loud, his new plan will support you by doing the opposite. so his biggest problem now is that he hasn't changed but he's not going to change. he is incapable of changing. why would he change? things have never gone wrong for him. he is the president of the united states. he is one of 44 people to hold that office. why would you change anything. that's my heels and his staff of time about you told me too drop off after "access hollywood". you don't know what you talking about. and you know, someone might be

standing there ten years from now saying that's how we won ten two terms. i hope not but he's not when a change and its folly for real people who are naïve or overly hopeful to always wait for when is the pivot coming, when is he going to stop tweeting like a crazy person, this and that, and i don't know how many time has to go by before you accept the fact that he's not going to change. this is where we are, this is what's going to continue, one thing i learned when i was studying my own prep for debate was he is the most predictable unpredictable person of all time and that's

why i don't understand where people are surprised. >> my name is sienna. i'm from the university of massachusetts and i was actually wondering about something you mentioned in your introduction, after the election something inside of me changed. i was wondering what intrinsically moved you to switch things that you believe in or what is something you would do differently now that you didn't before. >> again, i think the tax package is wrong, we've never passed tax cuts at the time of economic growth in our country's history, there's usually a reason why you cut taxes so he's running around saying it's the best economy ever. it's pretty transparent what he's doing, but i'm not going to the mat. my head is not exploding

because he passed tax cuts. to me the worst moment of this year, well, what changed on 801 was he had made it okay to say whatever he wanted, and with him we knew what he was saying, and most of the time it's just flat-out dumb. but he was unleashing a hate that was not going to dissipate. i think there is a combo of his basically giving everyone a get out of political correctness jail card and his behavior so the most dispiriting moment and angering moment for me was his speech to the boy scouts. it is hard to come in anyway

justify that and say it's okay. i went back and i looked at residence all the way back, i think at least to nixon, addressing the jamboree and what he said is crazy. it's crazy. i think what he is doing with the constant fake news and the disparaging people is i don't have kids, and there are times i wish i did, right now i'm that i don't because what he is doing to an entire generation of children is horrific. you hear stories about kids coming home and their parents saying what's with the sea on your report card and they say it's a fake report card or bullying, sexual harassment, domestic violence, i think were going to see over time

that these numbers have exploded. he could leave office tomorrow and will be dealing with this for generation in terms of that kind of thing and that's what kills me. if you want to wake up everyday and focus on tax cuts or infrastructure, i would disagree with them. i would not be screaming from the rooftops. it is this constant attacking every single part of society and he is testing it, the term bandit until it breaks, he doesn't care about breaking it. i think he is just swamping the system. he has got to be stopped. >> the morning. i currently attend miami-dade college. i'm interested in the progress

of the democrat party. since they lost a huge base with this election and wondering what the party might revisit the message that they were trying to mckay during the 2016 election or will they try other strategies to get the base but they lost. >> that's a good question because that's a big debate. i don't know the answer. i can tell you what i see which is i think you have this in two sections, your the 2018 midterms which is shaping up to be the ballgame, if you can flip the house that is really going to make a difference in terms of slowing him down and depending on what the muller investigation finds, actually taking steps, and then the second basket is 2020 and i think you have many people in the party now saying impeach, impeach like tomorrow or the minute we get control, because

he is committing high crimes and misdemeanors, he has met the threshold of being impeached, not to mention the 2h amendment which, people who lose their minds should not be president of the united states , and i don't know the answer to that. i do know, and here's a good example of what i was saying up front, history tells us 2018 is pointed ugly for him. it was ugly for barack obama, it was ugly for bill clinton and i would throw in their 2006 was ugly for george bush. but each of those things to me had a reason. bill clinton it was failure of healthcare and the budget deal. with barack obama it was obamacare, with george bush it was iraq. i don't know, and this is the question you're asking in the

debate whether just sheer hatred in the democratic party for this man is the equivalent of republicans getting worked up about obamacare or bill clinton or democrats in iraq. i think it is, but on the flipside you have people saying, including the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, that's not our message. stop saying impeach. you literally have people like tom stier who is very wealthy and he was a big, he was involved in politics for environment policy and he is taken it upon himself for this need to impeach and is focused on it. i for one agree with that. i think the man has met the threshold and that's all that's important. i don't know.

i think it would help tomorrow it would be a bloodbath. the biggest indicator to me of that which has been noticed is how many republicans are not running. not a week goes by where a republican, and i don't just mean junior members, people work committee chairman who have really big jobs are saying i think it's time to retire. it's over two dozen. then you get to 2020 which becomes a much harder problem. let's assume he's still in office. let's assume he hasn't lost his mind any more than he already has. i think it's going to be a bit of a circus in the democratic party. i think we can all probably name 30 people who might run

and not just a lot of people, but new types of people so you're going to have the businessmen, the businesswoman category, whether it's howard schultz were mark zuckerberg, mark cuban, you're going to have celebrities, i don't even know who, the rock, who by the way had my vote as of now because i think, honestly, that's a good point because i'm not sure who else, what is going to take to beat him. so you have this new category of business people, you will have a celebrity category and a large category of governors or senators and house members. i think there will be a lot of house members running which you don't see. usually these guys try to leapfrog and i think they're gonna cut that.

so, the problem, there are multiple problems. a lot of people with money have not run for president because they are not willing to spend a billion dollars to lose. i think mike bloomberg is a good example of that. but donald trump did, he won with $60 million out of his own pocket. now, if anyone here has $60 million in packet change, god bless you, you should run but there are a lot of people out there, celebrities and otherwise at $69 is pocket change. that will increase and then the biggest thing to me is, do people really think they will be able to outrun donald trump? he didn't change the rules. he didn't abide by them. that's a big difference. if someone says i'm gonna run

in an essay i could shoot people on broadway and i could have nine affairs and go out of business and stay say incredibly and stupid things and set the world we live in, they are going to lose. on the flipside, i don't know how not doing. again, he has not change the playing field. he has just been this unique person who skates through life and i hope this all corrects itself. i don't know that it's going to correct itself in that form. you joke about the rock, but it really might take someone who is literally bigger than life to say this guy is an idiot. it's hard imagining a governor or member of the senate, he's just going to say you are a product of the swamp, you just

vote, you don't do anything, i'm the one who fixed everything, you're threatened by the success so i'm bullish in 2018, bearish on 2020 and i don't know about the message. think it does help tomorrow it would be a bloodbath because his people, in the last month or two, what i'm about to say, people have been less angry than they were in 2016. i don't know if it's because russia didn't work, or they were just so happy that they could run around saying and doing whatever they wanted but, the imbalance between passion on the democratic side and at least some steadiness

on the republican side is a good fight. i worry about the fight of anger versus anger. i just don't think democrats are very good at translating anger into something because we don't resort to the same tactics, but if i had to pick between the two i would pick between running to ground what happened with russi russia, and if necessary, running on that. >> i'm a film major at miami-dade college located in south florida and hillary clinton has been described before as good leader but a bad candidate. what you believe should be done in a system that prefers candidates that know how to speak to a crowd as opposed to candidates that displayed leadership qualities.

>> there aren't many presidents walking there is. she is one of them. it's hard for me too think she's not a good candidate because i think that's the way, i understand your question, but it's sad that that's not considered the best way. the one thing i would add is, you mentioned speeches and the bit about her yelling is a pretty clear window into how male candidates and female candidates are treated differently. if barack obama was loud he was inspiring. if bill clinton was loud he was passionate. if hillary clinton is loud she's reading.

and that's tough so, back to what we were just talking about, i don't know what style of campaigning is going to work. it's possible that the style of campaigning is not only problematic for the hillary clinton's of the world, but for everybody. again, he steam rolled through the republican party. but, she is, sometimes i think this is a bad analogy because it's comparing them, but jack kennedy was more of a politician than people realized and bobby kennedy was more of a substance person and people realized and i think that goes for bill and hillary clinton, notion that he's a smart politician in the family, she understands people. she understands what's going

on. our mahoney people in this room have ever been around her or met her but the single thing you hear most after people meet her is, she is nothing what i thought which is what i thought when i interviewed with her and she's much more beautiful in person than on tv. which sounds funny because do they realize that's not a compliment. so you know, i don't know. i don't know if elizabeth one runs whether her passion is considered passion or a woman being louder than they should. >> thank you. >> a morning. >> my name is andrew. my question for you is, a question was asked earlier about how you have the job of

preparing donald trump, being donald trump as you prepare for the debate. i just wondered what are some of the tactics to used to get inside the secretaries had or what you employed. >> so it was sort of scary. i think we are all seeing it now, i just had a year head start on it. i think there are two parts to that. the marching orders i was given and what i saw. the marching orders i was given and the people who lead her debate prep who have done this multiple times, they've done it for president obama both elections, they are the best out there. it's really remarkable. iran is a once in a generation superstar.

his guidance was pretty interesting. it's a misnomer that he doesn't have policy. the policy might be wrong, it might be weird, but he has it. it's just scattered. he might have one of his people on tv saying something that's effectively policy, every now and then you may give a speech so you've got to know that. two, he relishes hitting his opponents and he seems to spend, to whatever extent he spends time practicing or thinking through debates, it tends to be on that side which isn't surprising given what we know about how he approaches interpersonal relationships. and, on the second part, what

i learned was he doesn't, on the opposition side, he doesn't make stuff up out of whole cloth. he exaggerates horribly. so for instance, he would attack john kasich by saying you've got a 2 billion-dollar deficit in ohio and you frat now that's an exaggeration, but, ohio did have a six or 800-dollar deficits we have john kasich saying hold on a second, that's not right we only had a 600 million-dollar deficit and you're watching this and it's like trunk just one. he would lie forbade them or hit them, but within a couple of, he would stay within a couple of iterations of the truth and it made it much more

effective. i watched debates, primary debates three times over, once normally, once just him and once with the sound off and he's not a good debater. the moments that people think he did well like calling job low energy or marco rubio little marco, he only resorts to that when he is incredibly frustrated by that person. there was no one who got under his skin more than jeb bush and when he got to the low energy put part or making fun of his wife or whatever it was , it was after an exchange of five minutes where he is turning red and just can't handle it. he snaps. this notion that he just flipped jeb bush off, you

could see it. i think part of it, bush was always, because the polling was usually next to him and he was the only person taller than him, and i think in the back of his mind he feared bush because he had the money, he was the establishment, if he was going to lose it would be to bush. but, it's a scary place to go because again, you can really do what you want and say what you want. it was the hardest, easy assignment i've ever had, but again, he's very predictable. he's the most predictable unpredictable person so, but it's hard to get that out of my head.

>> morning. thank you for being with us. my name is joseph, and coming from the harbor extension. i wanted to ask you, you've had a few questions are ready about 2020 and here's another. is it possible for modern democrat to be appealing to a jacksonian american. you think if it were it would include democratic populace, social media engagement campaign to sort of counter bill present trumps self advocacy? >> it is a great question. i'll unpack that a little bit. the social media part is a great example. it had a huge impact, but it had a huge impact and still has a huge impact particularly his twitter feed because he is , as much as it drives most people crazy, and to be honest, what's interesting is 70% of all americans, including republicans say they wish he had stopped so there's something about that that

everyone is recognizing as embarrassing, but what he's doing is very smart. he did it during the campaign and continues to do it, he's just giving talking points straight to his people which is really, really smart. so yes, 2020, democrats have to be. [inaudible] but as a democrat going to live via twitter and are they going to get away with that? is the media just to say donald trump changed the rules are now everyone can lie? of course, you have some poor candidate who says i'm in a do it his way and there to get swamped and then you get into the larger problem, the example that i like to use is fake news, which i really, really wish everyone was dark calling full news because if you buy into the whole conceit of fake news on his side, his people, you are being taken as a full.

you have used that as the simplest form of conversation in a pathetic way. i just wanted to get that off my chest, but look at one of the examples of something that was thrown at her last year. there was something going aroun around, facebook, god knows what else and let's forget about, for a moment, where it started that the pope endorsed donald trump. let's set aside the whole area bad because he only presidential candidate that are very attacked the pope was donald trump and even more so, the only person to attack back by a pope. now, it was very effective. you people who bought it didn't challenge it, they were taken as a full and they believe it and they say oh, i'm catholic.

the head of the catholic religion is single-family trump. now, one of the democrats posted about the question of what we were supposed to do about that last year? are we supposed to send out a fact check of the washington post or fact check.org saying in seven paragraphs this is what donald trump has said about the pope and this is the truth and push it out via twitter and facebook, that wouldn't work. should we have sent out something that said the pope has announced that anyone who votes for donald trump is going to a specific place and how and god told him that, that might've worked better, but we would never do that. again, it is, the tactics in

balance is a real problem. the fascination with conspiracy theory or the up session with it, i can't understand it. i guess a trump supporter would say believing in russia collusion is a conspiracy theory so let's just, that's one if you want to spot them on. it got pedophilia in the process, in the form of pizza recipes, they believe that craddick national committee staffers were murdered, they believe hillary clinton is concealing some kind of crazy illness, he goes on and on and the means of how you fight that, whether it's social media or tv ad or speech, it doesn't matter. i don't, so in terms, you don't need to win one 100% of the electorate so thankfully,

his 40% has become 32% or so, that gap, the people who voted for him who are disappointed in him who, i don't know what on earth they thought they were getting, but i don't know what kind of person appeals to them. what's really remarkable is look at the electoral maps going back to reagan. reagan won four tiny states and 84. nixon 149 states and 70 in 72. if you look at bill clinton's 9296 states, it's crazy. he's winning south dakota, north dakota, louisiana and since core bush it has been a 5050 country. i don't know, it might be as simple as taking back

michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, restoring the so-called blue wall. now who does that? do they have to be populace? i don't know that donald trump can out donald trump in the democratic primary is going to be very similar to 2006 midterm in that there is zero, and the 2007 presidential primaries, there is zero tolerance for anyone who supported iraq in any way. if you voted years after we went to iraq to provide funding for the troops, it was zero-tolerance. i understand that. if you apply that same sort of witness test, if you replace iraq with donald trump in 2019 and it's who's the angriest

democrat, i don't know that that's going to translate wellin 2023 might have a populist democrat who's really liberal. i was stalling to say i don't know. >> my name is rachel craig, i'm a graduate student at sussex university in boston and so bernie sanders had a larger amount of millennial support, but didn't have a ton of turnout and millennial's in general didn't really turn out for the general election and there was low enthusiasm so my question is, do you think there's anything specific that the democrats can do to get more nails actually out to the polls to vote for them. >> i need another hour to make fun of millennial and all sorts of things.

i would like to think they wake up and realize that not voting was not a good idea. either gary johnson or jill stein was not a good example for us. if you look at the states, if even 20% of the stein and johnson voters had shifted, hrc would have one. people who protested, if someone protested hrc because bernie sanders touted free college and she lived on planet earth and said that's the problem but i'm in a get you 99% there, i don't know what that millennial got out of 2016. donald trump is not giving anyone free tuition. he is taking away stuff from teachers and education. he is but the most unqualified

person in the top of the secretary of education, but i don't know how millennial think. i don't know, it's unclear what will get them going. someone like sanders or warren seem to tap into that, but not if you can't do it at the expense of wetmore where it goes back to what i was saying about you can't just assume that people last year would have gotten what hillary clinton got and added onto it. it's not like that is some sort of bedrock. she worked for inscrutability dollars on it so it's not a gimme, but i think millennial's have to, they have to, they, more than anyone have to say this is not normal. there is a lot of pressure to shut up. donald trump and his people want everyone to shut up, get over the election, hillary clinton go away, that's in their best interest, but

that's not how it works. we are supposed to oppose what we disagree with. and, i hope millennial's don't fall into a low of accepting this is what it is, god knows how many of them will see their taxes go down and basic just on that, but yeah, they are a key demographic that voted oddly in 2016 and i'm not sure people understand how to get them to vote productively. >> thank you. >> we are out of time. on behalf of the washington center we would like to

present you with this. >> thank you. [applause] animate amazed that in an hour no one asked about russia. is it because everyone just realizes that it's such a mess that he's guilty, that they did, and enough everyone noticed that steve bannon is quoted in a new book coming out that don junior and the crew taking this meeting and trump tower was treasonous so, i'm glad you very set your minds that you've seen enough evidence on that they don't have any questions. thank you again for having me. >> as this event wraps up we will take you live to the u.s. senate. they are about to gavilan to start the second session of the 115th congress. lawmakers will start the day by swearing-in to new members, doug jones from alabama and minnesota tina smith, both democrats bringing it to a 57 - 41 split.

republicans hold control of the chamber. live now to the senate here on c-span2. the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. everlasting god, our light and our salvation, you are our strength and shield of our nation and world. lord, as we receive the gift of this new year, we thank you for fresh starts and new mercies. may our lawmakers seize the seeds of opportunity that reside in the soil of their tomorrows,